In Technical Serv. Co. v. Trinitech Internat'l. Inc., 9th Dist. No. 21648, 2004 Ohio 965, a judgment was entered against the plaintiffs on a counterclaim. Almost a year later, they moved for relief from that judgment, citing subpart (5) of Rule 60(B). The trial court denied their motion, and they appealed to this Court. On appeal, they argued that the trial court had incorrectly analyzed their entitlement to relief under subpart (1) of Rule 60(B), which they had not cited in support of their motion, instead of under subpart (5), which they had cited in support of their motion. The Court determined that the circumstances relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their motion "smacked of 'excusable neglect' and thus, they found that there was no reason to invoke the less specific catchall provision, Civ.R. 60(B)(5)." Id. at P18. Upon determining that the circumstances relied upon by plaintiffs did not appropriately fall under subpart (5), the Court did not conclude that their motion should have been denied without further consideration. Rather, it determined that it was necessary to consider whether they were entitled to relief under subpart (1): Because we find that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) applies to the instant matter, we must next determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that Appellants failed to demonstrate "excusable neglect." Id.